Skip to main content

Testimonies of policemen not to be suspected always: SC

There is no absolute command of law that the testimonies of cops should always be viewed with suspicion if public witnesses to an offence do not come forward to depose, the Supreme Court today said.

A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Dipak Misra said the testimony of a cop should not be disbelieved on the ground that that he is a policeman and rather, the deposition be scrutinised on "the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."

"...There is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion.

"Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same," the bench said while referring to various previous judgements.

It said after scrutinising the evidence, the court may disbelieve the testimony of a policeman "but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust."

The observations came in a verdict rejecting the appeal of Pramod Kumar against his conviction for killing constable Maharaj Singh on March 19, 1999 at Gittorni village here.

Singh along with others had gone to a house at the village to arrest Pramod Kumar, a proclaimed offender who was evading arrest in a criminal case.

The accused, in his bid to flee, first stabbed the cop and then fired at him from his country-made pistol. The constable later died.

The trial court and the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction for various offences including that of murder.

Seeking acquittal, the convict told the apex court that apart from policemen, no independent witness was examined.

He also took the plea that in fact, another policeman had fired at Singh. The pleas, however, were rejected by the apex court.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/testimonies-of-policemen-not-to-be-suspected-always-sc-113070100767_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more